• Logging operations (Logging has the highest occupational fatality rate in the nation! 10x the national average.)
• Excavation sites and operations involving explosives
• Industrial equipment causing amputations (power saws, metal presses, meat processing, etc.)
• Radioactive materials exposure

• prioritization of housing stabilization or displacement prevention for residents after floods,
• transparency showing how Trust Fund disbursements reduce resident-level harm, or
• accountability when funds primarily offset governmental costs rather than community recovery.

1. Require reporting on resident-level outcomes, not just project or agency expenditures;
2. Prioritize funding uses that directly address housing loss, displacement, and community recovery when FEMA Individual Assistance is unavailable; and
3. Add transparency standards ensuring the Flood Resiliency Trust Fund does not function solely as a reimbursement mechanism for government operations while residents remain uncompensated.

On behalf of the West Virginia EMS Coalition, which represents over 80% of all emergency ambulance responses in the state, I would like to express our support for HB 4121 regarding the reporting duties of county commissions on ambulance services.

This bill was developed in response to legislative requests for information on how counties are delivery and funding EMS. Counties are increasingly passing levies, adopting ambulance fees, or making direct budget appropriations to support EMS within their counties yet there is no centralized system for collecting and reporting this information.

In working with the bill’s sponsor, we carefully crafted the legislation to ensure there were no unfunded mandates created for county commissions. We recognize a bill that imposes additional costs on counties would be difficult to pass.

The bill does require every county to make EMS service available without any requirement for funding it. Every county is already in compliance with the requirement.

Each county's 911 center has designated one or more emergency ambulance agencies for response, ensuring compliance with the proposed requirements.

Line 11 of the bill and current law says, "The county commission may provide the service directly through its agents, servants and employees; or through private enterprise; or by its designees; or by contracting with individuals, groups, associations, corporations or otherwise; or it may cause such services to be provided by an authority, as provided for in this article…” This existing law provides significant flexibility to counties in balancing emergency care and financial responsibility.

The current method of ensuring access to EMS in counties would remain unchanged. Approximately, half of West Virginia’s counties have established a county ambulance authority or a similar structure for the delivering of EMS. The rest designate or contract with a non-profit/private agency to provide the response.

For instance, Raleigh County, which designates agencies such as Jan-Care, Ghent VFD EMS, Best Ambulance, and Bradley-Prosperity VFD for EMS, will continue operating as they currently do without any additional funding requirements.

The bill does not impose any mandates that would result in increased costs for counties, including no provisions regarding the manner of emergency ambulance service delivery, the required number of ambulances per county, or specified response times.

The proposed deletion concerns outdated language from 1975 when the EMS Act was initially drafted. At that time, the modern EMS system in West Virginia was still developing, and not all counties had established centralized 911 systems or well-organized and regulated EMS agencies. Today, however, all counties provide EMS services in some manner. There is a consensus that EMS is an essential service, and no exemptions should be allowed for failing to provide life-saving response capabilities.

What HB 4121 does:

• Explicitly require counties to make emergency ambulance service available.

• EMS could be provided by county employees, an ambulance authority, private enterprise or by contracting for service (current law).

• Counties would not be mandated to provide any minimum level of funding.

• Counties would report annually the amount of county funds expended the prior fiscal year to fund emergency ambulance services.

• The Office of EMS would compile an annual report on local EMS system structures and funding to help guide future policy and state funding decisions.

The WV EMS Coalition believes this legislation is an important step towards provide legislators with the information needed to support future decisions about the funding and structure of EMS in West Virginia. We hope the Legislature continues to advance this bill towards passage.

Dear House Finance Members,

Stricter animal cruelty laws are much needed in West Virginia, as are more facilities to house stray, surrendered, and seized animals. I’ve volunteered in rescue for many years and have witnessed first hand the abuse and neglect inflicted on animals, the impact of overpopulation on our communities, and overpopulated shelters turning people away or directing them to rescues with even less resources than the shelters have. It seems never ending from my position but stricter consequences for those doing harm would be a good start, as would funding for programs that support spay and neuter and more shelter facilities. Also, an appropriate outdoor shelter should be defined by law along with care requirements for breeders to prevent for-profit neglect. Investigation into these matters when reported to law enforcement in towns and counties that do not have a humane officer should be required.

Thanks for your consideration,

Gina Myers

I agree that this bill needs to be passed.  It's a waste of time to take vichicles to shop to get inspected. If you look at the cars and trucks on the roads, who actually keeps up with the ones that have issues.  I see carsase and trucks driving around with several violations so the sticker seems to be a waste of time to get, just another way to collect money from the already poor people of West Virginia.  Please pass this bill. Sincerely Jarrett Riffle

• Undermines the medical cannabis program by creating parallel, less-regulated psychoactive markets;
• Shifts risk onto consumers without medical oversight or standardized dosing;
• Creates enforcement ambiguity between legal hemp, controlled substances, and medical cannabis;
• Disproportionately impacts public health while benefiting unregulated commercial actors.

West Virginia’s current licensure reciprocity structure for school psychologists seeking to practice independently creates unnecessary barriers that ultimately limit student access to essential mental health and evaluation services. While licensure standards are intended to protect the public, the existing process is often overly restrictive compared to neighboring states and does not reflect the realities of today’s school psychology workforce.

School psychologists across the United States are trained under nationally aligned standards through NASP-approved programs, accredited university preparation, supervised internships, and standardized credentialing processes such as the Nationally Certified School Psychologist (NCSP) credential. These benchmarks already ensure high-quality preparation. Yet experienced, fully licensed school psychologists in other states frequently face duplicative hurdles when attempting to serve West Virginia students in private or independent practice settings.

This has several serious consequences:

1. Reduced Access to Services for Children and Families
West Virginia continues to face shortages in child mental health providers, especially in rural regions. School psychologists in private practice help fill critical gaps by providing psychoeducational evaluations, risk assessments, counseling, and consultation services that schools often lack capacity to deliver in a timely manner. Lengthy or uncertain reciprocity processes delay or prevent qualified professionals from serving children who are already waiting months for evaluations and supports.

2. Outdated Barriers in a Modern Service Delivery Era
The profession has evolved. Telehealth, remote assessment models, and cross-state consultation are now standard practice. Many surrounding states have adapted licensure pathways to reflect workforce mobility and the need for interstate collaboration. West Virginia risks falling behind if its policies do not align with contemporary service models and regional workforce patterns.

3. Duplication of Already-Verified Competency
Professionals seeking reciprocity are often already licensed as independent school psychologists or psychologists elsewhere, have years of experience, carry malpractice coverage, and may hold national credentials such as NCSP. Requiring redundant documentation, additional examinations, or prolonged approval timelines does not meaningfully enhance public safety — it simply restricts workforce supply.

4. Impact on Schools and Special Education Compliance
Schools depend on timely evaluations to meet IDEA timelines and provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). When external evaluators are scarce, districts struggle with compliance, and students experience delays in identification, intervention, and services. Expanding access to qualified reciprocal providers directly supports school systems in meeting federal mandates.

Recommended Modernizations

West Virginia could maintain strong professional standards while improving access through:

• Streamlined reciprocity for professionals licensed in states with comparable standards

• Recognition of NCSP as evidence of meeting training and competency requirements

• Reduced duplicative documentation where credentials are already verified

• Temporary or provisional licensure pathways while full review is completed

• Alignment with interstate licensure mobility efforts seen in other health professions

Bottom Line

Modernizing reciprocity is not about lowering standards — it is about removing unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified professionals from serving children. West Virginia’s students, families, and schools benefit when licensure systems are rigorous and responsive to workforce realities. Updating reciprocity policies would strengthen service access, reduce evaluation backlogs, and support the state’s commitment to child mental health and educational equity.

• require or expand mandatory CWD testing,
• address known limitations of diagnostic reliability,
• establish public health standards for consumption,
• address environmental persistence of prions,
• or resolve jurisdictional gaps involving captive cervid operations regulated separately under W. Va. Code Chapter 19, Article 2H (Captive Cervid Farming Act).

I respectfully support the bill proposing antler restrictions on the second buck harvest in West Virginia, as it represents a science-based approach to improving herd quality, hunter opportunity, and long-term conservation.

Implementing antler restrictions on the second buck would allow more young bucks to reach maturity, improving age structure and overall herd health. States that have adopted similar measures have seen increased numbers of mature bucks, improved breeding dynamics, and greater hunter satisfaction without reducing participation.

This proposal strikes an important balance between opportunity and responsibility. Hunters would still be able to harvest a buck early in the season, while the antler restriction on the second buck encourages selectivity and stewardship. It rewards patience and ethical decision-making while preserving opportunity for youth and first-time hunters.

Additionally, this measure aligns with the interests of the majority of hunters who value seeing a healthier herd, more balanced sex ratios, and improved chances at mature deer over time. It also helps ensure that management decisions prioritize long-term sustainability rather than short-term harvest numbers.

Adopting antler restrictions for the second buck is a reasonable, forward-thinking step that supports wildlife conservation, hunting tradition, and the future of deer hunting in West Virginia. I urge you to support this bill.

As a Christian, I believe deeply in the dignity of every person and the importance of truth, humility, and good stewardship in public life. I also believe that government must be careful not to confuse its role with that of the Church, nor elevate any one individual or ideology in a way that compromises its responsibility to serve all people.

While I affirm the importance of the First Amendment and the value of free speech, I am concerned that HB 4797 ties a core constitutional principle to a single contemporary political activist. Doing so risks turning what should be a shared civic value into a partisan symbol. Scripture repeatedly warns against elevating individuals, aligning faith too closely with political power, or using authority to advance one faction over others.

Christian faith calls us to humility, peacemaking, and love of neighbor — including those with whom we disagree. A state holiday named for a modern political figure associated with division does not reflect those values, nor does it foster unity among the diverse people of West Virginia.

I am also concerned about the bill’s implications for public education. Our schools should teach civic principles in a way that is fair, balanced, and inclusive, not tied to the legacy of any one political movement or personality.

If the Legislature wishes to honor the First Amendment, it should do so in a way that reflects shared values, historical depth, and respect for all citizens — not by elevating one individual or ideology through state power. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose HB 4797 and urge lawmakers to reconsider.

• Commissioning an independent compensation study of county officials across all classes of counties;
• Establishing a performance-based or cost-of-living adjusted compensation framework that respects local budget realities;
• Providing optional guidelines or model compensation charts rather than hard targets.

1. State Policy Focuses on Corporate Infrastructure Rather Than Community Needs The bill declares data centers to be “critical national infrastructure” and directs the Department of Economic Development to certify and accommodate these facilities. The bill does not include parallel findings or programs addressing the needs of residents, small businesses, local infrastructure, or essential public services such as water, wastewater, housing, healthcare, or workforce stability.
2. Absence of Community Benefit or Local Impact Requirements HB 4854 does not require community benefit agreements, local hiring commitments, wage standards, infrastructure mitigation, or contributions to local public services. Counties and municipalities may still bear increased costs related to utilities, roads, emergency services, and environmental oversight without any statutory mechanism to offset those impacts.
3. Indirect Costs Remain With Ratepayers and Taxpayers While the bill prohibits direct subsidies, it does not address indirect public costs associated with high-impact data centers, including increased demand on electric generation and transmission, water resources, wastewater treatment capacity, and environmental monitoring. These costs are likely to be absorbed by residents and ratepayers rather than the private operators benefiting from the infrastructure.
4. Reduced Transparency Through Confidentiality Provisions The bill exempts data center business information from disclosure under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act. This limits public oversight of facilities that are explicitly designated as high-impact and critical infrastructure, even though their operations may significantly affect surrounding communities and public resources.
5. Unequal Treatment Compared to Small Businesses and Local Enterprises Small businesses and local employers do not receive expedited certification, confidentiality protections, or legislative recognition as critical infrastructure. HB 4854 establishes a regulatory and policy framework tailored specifically to large corporate entities without comparable consideration for locally owned businesses that employ West Virginians and contribute to community stability.
6. No Requirement to Align With Environmental or Infrastructure Capacity The bill does not require certification decisions to consider existing water quality issues, wastewater system capacity, environmental contamination, or cumulative infrastructure strain. This is particularly concerning in a state already facing documented challenges with water systems, sewage treatment, and environmental compliance.

• Expanded ethics jurisdiction over systemic and institutional misconduct
• Independent review mechanisms
• Transparent findings on causation and responsibility
• Remedies focused on recovery rather than elimination of local governance

• Lack of FDA approval
• Reports of contamination, adulteration, and inconsistent potency
• Documented adverse health outcomes and dependence risks

• Regulated under a physician-certified medical program
• Subject to controlled dispensing, tracking, and testing
• Used by patients with chronic pain, cancer, neurological disorders, and other qualifying conditions when traditional pharmaceuticals fail

• Treating medically relevant substances as recreational intoxicants
• Prioritizing enforcement and penalties over patient access and safety
• Creating chilling effects for lawful commerce that supports medical patients

• Discourage lawful businesses that also serve medical cannabis patients
• Increase compliance costs that are passed on to patients
• Confuse consumers and employers regarding legality, testing, and enforcement standards

• Improperly conflates kratom with medically relevant cannabinoid products
• Places public-health substances under an alcohol enforcement agency
• Risks undermining West Virginia’s medical cannabis program and patient access
• Fails to reflect the nuanced, evidence-based reasoning used by states like California when addressing kratom specifically

• Public policy exception – employees cannot be fired for reasons violating a substantial public policy (e.g., refusing to break laws or reporting illegal conduct).  
• Contractual protections – written or implied contracts may override the at-will presumption.  

• Employers in West Virginia may still lack clear statutory deterrence against discrimination targeting LGBTQ+ employees unless federal standards are enforced.
• Without robust state nondiscrimination statutes tied to business development programs, newly supported businesses could perpetuate exclusion without consequence.

• statutory transparency requirements for business support programs,
• audit and reporting mechanisms for jobs created, retained, or subsidized by state support,
• oversight to ensure that publicly endorsed businesses comply with fair-employment practices.

1. WV law presumes at-will employment, which allows employer terminations without cause except for limited legal exceptions.  
2. State statutes do not expressly address LGBTQ+ protections by sexual orientation or gender identity in WV employment law.  
3. The right-to-work law (§21-1A-3) has impacted union leverage and collective bargaining, weakening worker rights.  
4. HB 5200 lacks meaningful oversight, accountability, and equity provisions tied to state support for private business.

• Statutory definitions of equitable hiring standards and anti-discrimination protections extending to sexual orientation and gender identity,
• Independent audit/reporting requirements for jobs tied to state programs,
• Worker protections and due process rights that supplement the at-will default,
• Enforceable transparency measures for any business receiving public support.

• In 2022, the Governor of West Virginia issued an Executive Order directing the Alcohol Beverage Control Administration (ABCA) to halt the purchase and sale of Russian-produced liquor, including Russian vodka, in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
• That action was executive, not statutory, and was implemented through state-controlled alcohol distribution, not codified into the West Virginia Code.
• HB 5240 amends §11-16-10 of the West Virginia Code, which governs nonintoxicating beer, by creating a temporary Class T import license allowing out-of-state beer to be imported for limited events such as festivals and test marketing.

1. Expanding alcohol import permissions in statute while existing executive restrictions on foreign alcohol products remain unresolved and uncodified.
2. Failing to clarify whether temporary import licenses are subject to:
   • existing executive orders,
   • federal sanctions regimes, or
   • state-level trade or procurement restrictions.
4. Leaving enforcement to administrative discretion without statutory guardrails, which raises equal-protection, uniform enforcement, and transparency concerns under Article III, §10 of the West Virginia Constitution (separation of powers).

• West Virginia operates a control state alcohol system, meaning clarity in alcohol import authority is essential.
• When executive bans exist outside statute, and the Legislature expands import authority without harmonization, it creates:
  • inconsistent enforcement,
  • legal uncertainty for license holders,
  • and public confusion about which products are permitted.
• If the Legislature intends to maintain foreign-product restrictions, that policy should be explicitly addressed in statute, not left to executive orders that may expire, be modified, or be selectively enforced.

• W. Va. Code §11-16-10: governs nonintoxicating beer but does not address foreign trade restrictions.
• W. Va. Constitution, Art. III §10: requires laws to be applied uniformly and not left to arbitrary enforcement.
• Administrative law principles require that agencies act pursuant to clear legislative authority, not unresolved executive directives.

1. Clearly state that temporary import licenses are subject to all existing executive orders and trade restrictions, or
2. Require the Legislature to formally codify, repeal, or sunset prior alcohol import bans, including those related to foreign conflicts, to ensure transparency and consistency.

• Insert A: Amend §9-5-15 — Create the Expert Panel on Rare Diseases and Personalized Medicine within the Medicaid drug utilization review program
• Insert B: Amend §16-22-3 — Give the Bureau for Public Health access to the panel for specified newborn screening decisions
• Insert C: Amend §33-2-10 — Require the Insurance Commissioner to seek panel input before finalizing rules materially affecting rare disease access
• Insert D: Transition provision — Dissolve the existing RDAC, transfer records, repeal §16-5CC

• 16-22-3 — Newborn Screening Insertion. In subsection (d), after the existing language directing the Bureau for Public Health to propose legislative rules, add a new subsection (e):

• existing public adjuster contracts already in force,
• ongoing claim files,
• or disputes already pending.

• mandatory licensing to “act as or hold [oneself] out” as an adjuster (§33-64-2(a))  
• new contract rules and rescission requirements (§33-64-3)  
• new “insured’s rights” notices and conduct rules (§33-64-4)  
• new fiduciary trust-account handling requirements (§33-64-5)  
• new fee/commission limits and conditions (§33-64-6)  

• WV Constitution, Art. III, §4: “No… law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed.”  
• U.S. Constitution, Art. I, §10, cl. 1: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts…”  

1. Add an explicit prospective-only clause, such as: “This article applies only to contracts entered into on or after July 1, 2026, and does not impair existing contracts or vested rights.” (This directly reduces Contract Clause litigation risk.)  
2. Add a transition/grandfather provision for ongoing claims and existing adjuster engagements so current claims are not disrupted mid-stream.
3. Strengthen consumer financial protection, including re-evaluating whether a $5,000 bond is adequate to cover foreseeable harms.  
4. Require a self-funded implementation model, ensuring staffing/enforcement costs are covered by license fees—not general revenue.

I am writing in support of WV House Bill 5403.

This bill represents a meaningful and necessary step toward improving public safety in our state. The facilities currently operating under the existing exemption are, in effect, functioning without appropriate regulatory oversight. We are fortunate that West Virginia has not yet experienced a preventable tragedy associated with these conditions.

The structures in question constitute a clear change in occupancy classification. An exemption originally intended for infrequent, private events, such as a family member’s or neighbor’s wedding, has increasingly been applied to recurring, for-profit assembly uses. When a building functions as an assembly occupancy, it should be subject to the life safety requirements designed for that level of public risk.

Allowing large gatherings without consistent application of fire and life safety standards places the attending public in an unnecessarily vulnerable position. House Bill 5403 helps ensure that regulatory intent aligns with actual use and promotes reasonable safeguards for those who attend these events.

For these reasons, I respectfully support the passage of this bill.

• Property access and local housing supply
• Agricultural competition
• Mineral and timber market pricing
• Rural tax base stability
• Community development patterns

• Acreage and land use
• Timber value
• Carbon credit and sequestration agreements
• Revenues derived from land
• Tax generation data

• Provide public access standards to ensure transparency benefits citizens
• Establish enforcement penalties for noncompliance
• Address how reported data will prevent harmful land aggregation
• Protect small landowners or family farms from displacement pressures

• Limited housing availability
• Reduced farmland accessibility
• Concentrated mineral and timber control
• Economic dependency on large industrial landholders

• Public database access
• Anti-monopoly safeguards
• Protections for small agricultural producers
• Review of tax equity between large and small landowners

• Purchasing new U.S.-compliant systems
• Training personnel on new equipment
• Replacing software ecosystems
• Disposing of existing equipment
• Potential contract termination penalties

1. A full fiscal impact disclosure.
2. A statewide inventory of currently used drone systems.
3. A cost comparison between domestic and foreign alternatives.
4. A clear explanation of how this bill improves operational safety or security beyond existing federal restrictions.

• Encourages the planting of NATIVE e pollinator-friendly habitats on private property; (C) Creates a strategy for the planting of NATIVE  pollinator-friendly habitats in state parks and state forests;
• Provide funding sources to establish native pollinator habitats in state parks and state forests

This legislation is premised on assumptions that are not supported by data, yet it carries a fiscal note that presents those assumptions as fact. Similar concerns apply to the presentation of HB 4025. Before advancing legislation of this magnitude, it is reasonable to ask whether leadership within the affected agencies, or the human resources professionals responsible for implementation, have been meaningfully consulted.

There is a documented reason agencies have sought removal from the Division of Personnel in recent years. This bill does not acknowledge that history, nor does it address whether the systemic issues that prompted those transitions have been resolved. If those issues remain unaddressed, agencies may continue to experience delays, limited responsiveness, and reduced flexibility in meeting operational needs.

The assumption that agencies will reduce staffing or administrative capacity as a result of this change is also questionable. Agencies will still be required to fill vacancies, maintain compliance, and respond to dynamic workforce demands, particularly those providing critical public services such as transportation, social services, and revenue administration. Any perceived cost savings must be weighed against potential impacts to service delivery, workforce stability, and operational autonomy.

If the intent is increased efficiency or cost containment, has data been examined to demonstrate that a centralized system produces better outcomes? Specifically, have vacancy rates, time-to-hire metrics, service delays, or workforce outcomes been compared across single-system and multi-system models? Without such analysis, claims of inefficiency or redundancy remain speculative.

Finally, this proposal runs counter to a decade-long trend of agencies moving away from centralized personnel administration. It is worth considering whether this legislation reflects a sustainable policy direction or one likely to be reversed by a future administration. Structural workforce decisions should be grounded in evidence, stakeholder input, and long-term operational realities, not assumptions.

Thank you. Smart move. We need to pass this. We are entering a very dangerous path of digital bondage and this is a start to maintaining some autonomy.

I am for Handler dispatch. This not only keeps everyone involved safer but it also ensures the animal a quicker resolution.

Im a licensed Outfitter in the State of West Virginia. Operating Bloodline Trackers and Chillbilly Outdoors, Both licensed and insured businesses within our beautiful state. My primary contribution has been to our hunting public, working as a professional wounded game recovery specialist. I've been successfully tracking game since its legalization. I strongly support handler dispatch. Ive personally been in several scenarios in which the safety of myself or my dog has been challenged by a wounded animal. I've also had physically  challenged clients whom, either by age or handicap, were unable to keep on the trail.  Those licensed hunters may not have the physical prowess necessary to recover an animal that's put distance between himself and the hunter or to follow myself, the tracker, into rough terain. I support this bill. Thank you.

I strongly support this bill for WV! We need help.

HB 5601

Disaster Case Management is crucial to the success of long-term recovery:

• inherited property during probate,
• modest rentals (small landlords),
• properties where owners are temporarily displaced,
• lots tied up in family disputes,
• homes where documentation lags behind reality.

• Keep a limited redemption window for non-owner-occupied property (even 30–90 days) where the delinquency is cured plus costs.
• Require a real appeal/hearing on owner-occupied classification before rights are cut off.
• Allow courts to set aside deeds when notice is constitutionally defective (not damages-only).
• Add protections for estates/probate, heirs property, and hardship situations.

I’m writing to oppose HB 5645. This bill would make it much harder for eligible West Virginia families to access SNAP by adding more paperwork, more frequent recertifications, and eliminating common-sense eligibility options. These changes would create confusion, increase administrative burden, and likely cause many qualified households to lose food assistance.

I urge you to oppose this bill.

1. The complex administrative requirements in HB 5645 will increase our state’s payment error rate;
2. When our payment error rates increase, West Virginia will have to cover more of the costs of both SNAP and Medicaid;
3. Future legislatures will have to either identify new funding streams, or cuts will have to be made (with the latter being more likely);
4. Health care system, local grocers, and our charitable food system will be left to manage the fallout from these cuts;
5. West Virginians will lose critical access to food and healthcare.

• strengthen workforce pathways and job placement • target fraud with precision rather than broad administrative burdens • protect taxpayers while supporting workers • maintain flexibility to respond to local economic realities in West Virginia

• Interrupting enforcement of environmental, public health, occupational safety, and licensing protections
• Creating regulatory gaps if agencies lack resources to complete zero-based reviews in time
• Increasing litigation exposure when protections lapse

• Clean Water Act requirements
• Safe Drinking Water Act standards
• OSHA occupational safety standards
• Medicaid and public health compliance frameworks

• Fall out of federal compliance
• Jeopardize federal funding streams
• Trigger federal preemption challenges

• Interference with judicial discretion
• Increased constitutional litigation
• Prolonged legal uncertainty around rule enforcement

• Agencies are legally obligated to implement statutes
• But may be prevented from doing so due to artificial burden ceilings

• Significant agency staffing
• Economic analysis
• Legal review
• Public notice procedures

• Expanded judicial challenges
• Injunctions against agencies
• Legal delays in rule enforcement

• Regulatory instability
• Federal compliance risk
• Increased litigation
• Administrative strain
• Potential constitutional challenge